Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – Towards an inclusive response to
homophobic and transphobic violence and hatred
Report of the Seminar
10 December 2014
Summary
The ILGA-Europe seminar “Stepping up the fight against hate crimes - Towards an inclusive
response to homophobic and transphobic violence” took place on 10 December 2014 and
brought together over 60 representatives of LGBTI and human rights civil society
organizations, EU institutions, Member State governments, international organisations and
academia.
Key speakers included ILGA-Europe members, representatives of the European
Commission, European Parliament, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) , as well as many
other experienced practitioners. The debates focused on the EU’s and its Member States’
responses to homophobic and transphobic hate crimes.
The main objectives of the seminar were:
1. To facilitate the discussion on the various models of hate crime legislation in order to
assess their effectiveness and impact;
2. To assess EU legislation and explore the legal avenues to strengthen the EU legislation
framework to combat hate crimes and to protect victims of homophobic and transphobic
more efficiently;
3. To strengthen cooperation between EU institutions, civil society and other stakeholders
and pave the way for shared operational objectives;
The question of gaps in EU legislation tackling homophobic and transphobic hate crime was
at the centre of the discussions. Workshops exchanges looked closer at how EU legislation
could tackle those gaps. Best practice examples of fighting hate crime on the ground were
discussed and the importance of partnerships between civil society, police forces and the
judiciary system was reemphasized.
In the closing session, participants called upon Members of the European Parliament, the
European Commission and the upcoming Luxemburg Presidency to step up the fight against
homophobic and transphobic hate crime across the EU. The LGBTI Strategy, announced by
Commissioner Jourova, will be essential in this regard.
1
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
Detailed Proceedings
1. State of play: the situation regarding homophobic and transphobic hate crimes in
the EU
The opening session kicked off with Evelyne Paradis’ (ILGA-Europe) recalling that
tackling homophobic and transphobic hate crime is a key priority for ILGA-Europe. Evelyne
Paradis outlined the need to take stock of manifestations of homophobic and transphobic
hate crime and to assess how EU institutions and Member States are addressing hate
crimes. She emphasised the need for a collective strategy to address gaps in order to build a
Europe free from homophobic and transphobic violence.
Opening remarks by the EU’s Italian presidency
Representing the Italian presidency in office, Filippo Colombo (Italian Permanent
Representation to the EU) gave an overview of measures taken by the Council of the EU,
building on the adopted Council conclusions on hate crimes of 6 December 20131. He
confirmed that gaps in data collection still hamper the ability of Member States to tackle hate
crime effectively.
A Council/FRA Working Party gathering EU Member States and FRA representatives met for
the second time in November 2014, in Rome. The Working Party is tasked to exchange
practices on various aspects of hate crime. Underreporting will be a priority. There is a high
discrepancy regarding data collection practices across Member States and there is a need to
work towards shared definitions and methods. Synergies with activities of the Council of
Europe and ODHIR/OSCE will be sought in this regard. The WG will also focus on
cooperation with the media and the development of educational activities in school
environments. Member States will reflect on procedures designed to build knowledge of hate
crimes and better equip police and prosecutors in this regard.
Regarding legislation, Mr Colombo confirmed that for now the Council is focusing on the
implementation of the EU acquis, notably the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on
combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
(hereinafter, the Framework Decision) and Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (hereinafter, the Victims’
Rights Directive).
2. Member States criminal law systems protecting victims and prosecuting hate
crimes
The first panel discussed Member States’ criminal law systems protecting victims and
prosecuting hate crimes. Craig Barnes from the LGBT Equality Team within the UK
Government Equalities Office (GEO) gave an overview of the legislation related to hate
crimes in the UK.
The seriousness of several cases of hate crimes with a bias motive led to the UK
government putting into place legislation and operations to tackle hate crimes. Especially the
murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 was a catalyst for change – both in the way the police
and criminal justice system deal with racially-motivated crimes and in the recognition of hate
crimes. Today there is greater understanding of the disproportionate impact hate crimes
have on victims.
The UK government defines hate crime as “any criminal offence which is perceived, by the
victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal
characteristic”. According to this definition, hate crime can be motivated by disability, gender
1
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/139949.pdf
2
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
identity, race, religion or faith and sexual orientation.2 Legislative measures are only part of
the response to hate crimes. It is a priority for the UK government along with the question of
under-reporting. The legislative tools are covering incitement to hatred based on race,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, and racially and religiously motivated offences.
Legislation protects victims from such hate crimes, including offences for those who intend to
stir up racial hatred, commit racially and religiously aggravated offences. New criminal
offences and enhanced sentences have been introduced in recent years to reflect the
seriousness of hate crime.
Measures are being put in place to ensure the operational enforcement of legislation notably
at the level of the police through a National Policing Hate crime strategy along with
operational guidance. A tool kit for prosecutors dealing with cases of homophobic and
transphobic hate crimes has been developed, along with confidence building measures
encouraging reporting and support the victims.3
Romania
Carolina Marin (ACCEPT, Romania) made the case of the still prevailing fragmentation
within the EU criminal law landscape. According to the Romanian Penal Code, crimes based
on opinion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or political views of a person are particularly
grave, with hate crime being an aggravating factor. But the problem is that this legislation is
not enforced in Romania. Carolina reported about several serious cases of verbal and
physical assaults against LGBTs individuals which have remained unaddressed and
unpunished, both at the level of the police and of the prosecuting office. There is a clear lack
of political will, lack of awareness about hate crime, with no trainings of the police forces and
the prosecutors. Victims are often afraid to report incidents due to prejudiced attitudes
present at the level of the police authorities.
Transgender hate crimes
Boglarka Fedorko presented Transgender Europe (TGEU), an organisation whose
mission is to ensure that trans people in Europe can enjoy their human rights and full equality
in all spheres of life. In the fight against hate crime, TGEU offers victim support services and
advocacy. Boglarka presented TGEU’s Legal and Social Mapping Tool4 , an overview of
gender identity as a protected ground in the context of hate crime legislation and other laws
and policies. She also presented the ProTrans project which supports TGEU member
organisations and other stakeholders in monitoring violence against trans people and in
establishing support for trans survivors of violence.
FRA latest EU LGBT and Transgender survey
Boglarka welcomed the latest FRA report “Being Trans in the European Union –
Comparative analysis of EU LGBT survey data” which provides substantial evidence of the
high level of recurring violence and hate-motivated crime affecting trans persons. The results
show that the annual incidence rate of violence or harassment is around one incident per two
trans respondents, which is twice as high as the incidence rates for lesbian, gay and bisexual
respondents. About two in five (44%) trans respondents who were victims of violence in the
12 months preceding the survey indicate that this happened three or more times during this
period. This indicates the need to improve policies combating hate crime across the EU.
With regard to suffered violence, trans respondents are the most likely of all LGBT groups to
say they were attacked or threatened with violence in both the five-year and one-year time
periods asked about in the survey. In the five years preceding the survey, 34% of all trans
respondents experienced violence or were threatened with violence, and 15% experienced
violence or the threat of violence in the 12 months preceding the survey. Among all the LGBT
2
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-and-preventing-crime--2/supporting-pages/hate-crime
Website “True Vision”, www.report-it.org.uk.
4
http://www.transrespect-transphobia.org/uploads/downloads/Legal-Social-mapping2014/web_tvt_mapping-europe_small.pdf
3
3
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
survey respondents, the trans respondents are also the most likely to report hate-motivated
violence to the police.
Data collection
Currently, only Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom collect segregated data on biasmotivated crimes committed against trans people The Swedish National Council for Crime
Prevention (Brå) publishes statistical data on crimes in Sweden, amongst which the Swedish
Crime Barometer.
Brå also publishes data specifically on hate crime, including of a separate category for trans
people/ gender identity. In the United Kingdom, the Gender Equality Duty (GED) came into
force in April 2007 and required all UK public authorities to carry out their functions in due
regard of the need to: (i) eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment on the grounds of
sex, and (ii) promote equality of opportunity between women and men.
Legal protection of transgender persons against hate crimes: the case of Scotland
Scotland has produced one of the most Transinclusive legislation against hate crimes.
Scottish authorities understood that in order to improve trans people’s living experiences,
trans communities needed to be considered as key stakeholders to any policy making
process that are likely to affect their lives. The Scottish Transgender Alliance (STA) was set
up with public funding to provide training sessions on trans issues to the Scottish Parliament,
government and public authorities, as well as to develop trans related policies. The success
of the approach led to an extension of the funding in order to engage the wider Scottish trans
community in policy making.
Following input provided by STA regarding the Scottish Trans people’s experience of biascrime and violence, the Scottish Parliament progressed hate crime legislation expressly
covering gender identity. The Offences (Aggravation by prejudice) (Scotland) Act entered
into force in March 2010. This Act extended the protection that was already in place for
victims of prejudice crime motivated by their racial or religious characteristics to sexual
orientation, transgender identity and disability.
3. Assessing EU responses to Hate Crimes and Support to the Victims. What are their
impacts?
The second panel started with a presentation of Aydan Iyigüngör (FRA) presenting the
findings from the recently published LGBT survey and transgender report as well as the
purpose and activities of the Working Party on Improving Reporting and Recording of Hate
Crime. Aydan confirmed that 78% of LGBTI hate crimes were not reported to the police.
Almost a fifth (19%) of the 93,079 respondents said that they had been victims of
harassment in the past year, partly or completely because they were perceived to be lesbian,
gay, bisexual or transgender. Lesbian women were the most likely to have been harassed –
almost a quarter (23%) in the last year – along with transgender respondents, of whom 22%
had been harassed in the preceding 12 months.
Aydan gave an overview of the range of research that the agency was involved in. Activities
include access to justice for victims of hate crime, hate crime against persons with
disabilities, children with disabilities, and the pilot project on hate crime indicators “Targeted
Violence and Hostility” in Ireland, the Netherlands, and Finland.
Challenging hate crime through law
Paul Iganski (professor at Lancaster University) focused on the importance of using the
law to challenge cultures of hate. Research evidence shows that hate crimes hurt more on
average compared to other crimes, with victims being more likely to report post-victimisation
emotional and psychological distress.
4
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
There are a number of reasons to explain this phenomenon. Hate crimes are ‘message
crimes’. Intentionally or not, perpetrators strike at the core of the victim’s identity,
disparaging, denigrating and marginalising the victim. The greater harms inflicted by hate
crimes provide yet another rationale for hate crime laws.
Challenging hate violence means challenging the cultural values which spawn hate. Law is
constitutive of culture itself by providing a narrative of how a society seeks to be and
envisions the relations between its members Law therefore plays a crucial role in
constructing narratives against the attitudes underpinning hate violence. This lays the
foundations for the dynamic evolution of communities without violence and promoting respect
for diversity and difference. In his concluding comments, Paul Iganski called for criminal
justice systems across Europe to takle homophobic and transphobic hate crime seriously so
that victims and offenders receive an appropriate response. There is a need for all Member
States to end double-standard policies whereby violence on the basis of a person’s sexual
orientation or sexual identity is treated less seriously than other types of bias crimes in
certain Member States and at EU level.
EU legal instruments addressing hate crime and victims’ rights
Linda Ravo ( DG Justice, European Commission) presented the European legal
framework on hate crime and on other relevant EU policy action and funding:
 The Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA adopted in 2008 lays down a common approach
to combating racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. Its scope covers certain
intentional forms of hate speech and hate crime committed with a bias motivation related
to the race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin of the victims.
 Whether to consider a bias motivation based on grounds other than those explicitly
mentioned in the Framework Decision, including sexual orientation and gender identity, is
up to each Member State under national law.
 Combating hate speech under the Framework Decision includes the obligation to
criminalise the public incitement to violence or hatred, including by public dissemination
or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material; aiding and abetting is also punished.
 Investigations into or prosecution of the conduct should not depend on a report or an
accusation made by a victim
 Under the framework decision, there is an obligation to provide for effective,
proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
 Investigations into or prosecution of conduct should not depend on a report or an
accusation made by a victim
 For all criminal offences (murder, arson, bodily harm etc.), Member States must either
ensure that racist and xenophobic motivation is considered an aggravating circumstance
or ensure that such motivation may be taken into consideration by the courts in the
determination of penalties:
 In terms of implementation, the deadline expired in November 2010: all Member States
have now notified their transposing legislation. A report was published by the European
Commission (EC) in January 20145
 Key challenges have been identified in terms of implementation and include
Incomplete/incorrect transposition; limited application of the provisions (gaps in
investigation and prosecution);
 Since December 2014, the EC, formally acquired enforcement powers and will make use
of those to further ensure sound implementation of the framework decision through
bilateral dialogues with all Member States.
Directive on the Rights of Victims of Crime6
5
link http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/framework-decision/index_en.htm
Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHAhttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/victims/index_en.htm
6
5
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
The directive aims at ensuring that all victims of crime are recognised, treated with respect
and receive proper protection, support and access to justice. It also includes provisions on
training on victims' needs, and encourages cooperation between Member States and
awareness rising on victims' rights.
The Directive’s main provisions are:
 An obligation to assess victims' individual specific needs for protection
 An obligation to ensure unconditional access to specialist support services
 An invitation to collect good quality targeted data, including on the prevalence of
particular forms of crime and on how victims are assisted and protected
 An obligation to set up training measures targeted at law enforcement as well as
judicial authorities;
The implementation deadline for the directive will expire in November 2015. A Guidance
document was published in December 2013.The Commission will soon launch bilateral
dialogues with Member States which most need assistance for ensuring timely and correct
transposition.
In terms of policies and actions, the EC has supported the establishment of expert’s fora
and platforms aiming to facilitate exchange of good practices. EU funding is also available
for the development of efficient monitoring and reporting mechanisms for racist and
xenophobic hate crime and speech, including online hate speech, and the exchange of best
practices to combat racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance, with a focus on
criminal law tools; the development of programmes providing support to victims, the training
of judges, prosecutors and other legal professionals.
Poland
Kuba Sękowski (Chief specialist in the Criminal Law Department of the Polish Ministry
of Justice) recalled the important role played by both the Council of Europe (CoE) and the
EU in enhancing Poland’s legal framework protecting human rights and combating
discrimination. Poland ‘s constitutional framework is based on the rule of law and complies
with its obligations being a state party to the UN basic human rights treaties and to the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Its legal system has learnt from
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and its dialogue with ECRI. Poland
complies with the EU non-discrimination framework (But Poland’s legal tradition remains
conservative. While Poland has no provisions specifically covering hate crimes and has
imposed the Framework Decision without extending it to sexual orientation. The Victims’
Rights Directive has not yet been implemented. The General Prosecutor’s instructions for
prosecutors in the field of hate crimes provide practical accompanying measures and district
prosecutors specialised in hate crime have been appointed. Police officers have been trained
in cooperation with LGBT organisations.
Belgium
Kenneth Mills from Çavaria raised the issue of the serious gaps which prevail in terms of
data collection and data collection of homophobic and transphobic crimes. In its Belgium
country report, ECRI highlighted this problem and recommended that the authorities “pursue
systematic research and data collection concerning intolerance and discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, including a general attitude survey on
LGBT related questions”. Kenneth Mills stressed the importance of projects which can further
nurture relations between LGBTI organisations and the police authorities. Trainings of police
authorities are taking place in this context.
4. Workshops
Workshop 1 – Towards inclusive EU legislation to combat hate crimes. What do we
need? What are the challenges? What could be the way forward?
6
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
This workshop focused on the fragmented landscape across EU Member States when
tackling hate crimes and the existing gap in EU legislation regarding homophobic and
transphobic hate crimes. The opportunity and chances of new EU legislation to close that
gap was the object of significant debate. Paul Iganski made the case that differences among
Member States should not be accepted and that inclusive hate crime legislation in terms of
criminal codes needs to be the strategic goal.
Kuba Sękowski agreed with the fact that equal treatment should prevail between all grounds
from Article 19 TFEU, but pointed to different cultural traditions in each Member State.
According to him, the Criminal Code cannot be a tool for social change but can only reflect it.
Linda Ravo agreed with the fact that Criminal Code should prompt change, but according to
her political will by Member States is lacking. In addition, the EU can only act within the limits
of its competence and the principle of subsidiarity should be respected. Mainstreaming EU
anti-discrimination legislation into EU criminal law is technically possible, but might face
strong resistance. The proposed non-discrimination Horizontal Directive7 does not foresee
any harmonisation of criminal law provisions. Linda suggested that better implementation of
the anti-discrimination legislation should be sought.
Natacha Kazatchkine (Amnesty International European Institutions Office) highlighted the
need of compliance between the EU anti-discrimination legislation8 and criminal law as a
strategic objective of the EU. The discussion subsequently focused on the implementation of
the Framework Decision and on further steps the EC could take in this respect. Linda Ravo
mentioned the limited scope of the Framework Decision, especially article 4 and 8.
Guidelines for Member States on the implementation were still under discussion in the
European Commission. Linda also emphasised the importance of dialogue between the
Commission and civil society.
Pol Naydenov (Bilitis, Bulgaria) highlighted concerns about hate speech propagated by
religious groups and institutions referring to the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria using the
argument of freedom of expression to legitimise such acts. Linda Ravo confirmed the
importance of receiving information from NGOs at national level in order to better monitor
hate crime situations. In terms of freedom of expression and human rights law, there is a red
line between the two.
The fact that hate crime legislation needs to take into account the needs of different identity
grounds and affected groups was stressed in this respect, the Victims’ Directive was
mentioned, as it contains provisions that can be applied to bias motivated speech/violence.
Paul Iganski stated that an EU Criminal law including provisions on bias-motivated hate
crime is key and should be a model for legislation on national level. There was broad
recognition that more political discussion between civil society and the EC is needed and
strong consensus emerged on the need to push forward an EU LGBTI Strategy. The
monitoring the implementation of the Framework Decision would be an opportunity to check
whether member states have decided to extend the scope of the instrument to sexual
orientation and gender identity.
Workshop 2 – Best practices of combating hate crime on the ground
This workshop aimed at exchanging innovative models of stakeholder partnerships involving
LGBTI organisations with the aim of tackling homophobic and transphobic hate crimes.
Joanna Perry (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR))
gave an overview of current work on hate crime recording and reporting. She recalled the
Ministerial Council Decision No. 9/09 on combating hate crimes as well as the work of the
7
Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation {SEC(2008) 2180} {SEC(2008) 2181}http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/law/index_en.htm
8
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
racial or ethnic origin.- Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal
treatment in employment and occupation- http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/law/index_en.htm
7
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
Council/FRA Hate Crime Working Party. To assist OSCE participating states in filling the
remaining gaps in policies against hate crimes, ODIHR has developed different programmes:
hate crime recording, police training, supporting law makers, training prosecutors, working
with civil society and working with educators. An important tool of ODHIR is the website
www.hatecrime.osce.org which collects data on hate crime in different countries. Official data
is complemented with NGO information. The website is a useful tool for activists as it
confronts the state’s actions in the face of its commitments at ministerial level. A drawback of
the project is that sexual orientation is not mentioned, because there is no consensus among
OSCE Member States that “other grounds” includes sexual orientation.
Joanna Perry also admitted that transphobic violence does not have the profile it should have
on the website. In the area of hate crime recording, a Practical Guide has been developed to
fill data gaps and gain a better understanding of the prevalence and impact of hate crime
across the OSCE region.9 This guide helps states diagnose where they are at and helps
activists advocate for improved responses.
Nick Antjoule (GALOP, London) presented Galop’s work in countering hate crime. Firstly,
victims of homophobic or transphobic attacks can report to Galop. Galop then sends the
report to the police and follows up the case. After case-files have been instructed and
processed in court, the records are sent to community workers. LGBT organizations can then
better understand how the case was handled and positive or negative developments that
might have impacted on the case instruction. The numbers of people who report hate crimes
and get their case through court remains limited. And there is a need for an official
acknowledgement of homophobic and transphobic violence. Research on hate crimes is
notably accounted for through questions on hate crimes inserted in the UK Household
Survey. Additionally, there are opinion surveys on what people in the UK think about different
communities. This research is useful to Galop in order to shape messages for the media
when contacted by them. Katrin Hugendubel (ILGA-Europe) noted that cooperation with
authorities while keeping the organisation’s independence is an important factor in Galop’s
success.
Joanna Perry drew attention to the impact of joining forces to make the call stronger. She
mentioned Greece, where the establishment of a Racist Violence Coordination Network,
significantly impacted on the public reporting of hate crimes by public authorities, including
homo- and transphobic hate crimes. This network is composed of the UNHCR, the national
human rights body and NGOs. The network conducted trainings with the police and provided
reflection on law implementation which helped to create momentum for the fighting against
hate crime in Greece.
Julia Kata (Trans-Fuzja , Poland) reported that in Poland a “police platform against hatred” is
in place where the police meets with NGOs, including LGBTIQ organisations. The Polish
human rights defender is also involved, which helps cooperation. Data collection is very
important, because of the “no data, no problem” mind-set.
Katsiaryna Barsuk (GayBelarus) shared her experiences of working in Belarus, which is not a
participating state of the Council of Europe and neither of the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe. Police is very prejudiced and does not want to work on hate crime.
The police forces do receive training, but only from police authorities from the United
Kingdom and Germany. GayBelarus cooperates with the UK and Germany police force
authorities to ensure that homo- and transphobic hate crimes are addressed. GayBelarus
also aims at making cases visible through strategic litigation.
Workshop 3 – Making hate crime legislation effective: the role of law enforcement and
judiciary authorities
The objective of workshop three was to examine the role of law enforcement and judiciary
authorities in tackling hate crime. Pascale Charhon (Charhon Consultants) recalled that law
enforcement authorities and judiciary authorities have a decisive role to play in ensuring that
9
Hate Crime Data Collection and Monitoring: A Practical Guide,http://www.osce.org/odihr/datacollectionguide.
8
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
homo- and transphobic hate crimes are understood, properly investigated and sanctioned.
The development of police authorities’ confidence building measures towards LGBTI
communities is also needed in order to address under-reporting and better respond to the
needs of victims. A clear understanding of the nature of homophobic and transphobic hate
crimes and learning to recognize common experiences of discrimination affecting LGBT
people by law enforcement and judiciary authorities is key in ensuring that hate crimes are
properly recorded and sanctioned.
The last years numerous initiatives have been developed by LGBT organisation and police
authorities to help police, investigators and prosecutors better understand and identify
potential hate crime cases of homophobic nature. Pascale Charhon mentioned the work
undertaken by ILGA-Europe to cross-fertilise those practices.
Kerttu Tarjamo (CoE Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Unit) presented the 2010
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 to Member States on measures to combat discrimination
on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Building on existing human rights
instruments (particularly ECHR and the ECHR case law), it calls for the review of legislation
and other measures and to conduct relevant research and data collection in order to monitor
and redress any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender
identity. The Recommendation further referred to the rights to life and security
recommending that CoE Member States:
 ensure effective and prompt investigation of alleged cases of hate crime, take into
account a bias motive related to sexual orientation or gender identity as an aggravating
circumstance when determining sanctions;
 encourage victims and witnesses of SOGI related hate crimes to report, making sure that
law enforcement officials have the skills and knowledge to identify cases and to support
and assist victims and witnesses;.
 guarantee the safety of persons in prisons or such institutions, especially protection of
LGBT persons from physical violence, and the protection and respect of transgender
persons gender identity;
 collect relevant data on the prevalence and nature of discrimination and intolerance on
grounds of SOGI, especially on hate crimes.
Targeted initiatives by the CoE to address homophobic and transphobic hate crimes also
include specific education and training for legal professionals and the police, the
development of a database of promising policies on hate crimes (accessible in 2015) and
practices in the field of police training in Montenegro, Albania, Poland and Latvia.
Stefano Failla (CEPOL) presented the EU agency CEPOL. The agency provides a platform
for the training of law enforcement officers across the EU via residential courses, seminars,
online modules, webinars (online seminars), common curricula and staff exchange programs.
CEPOL cooperates with the FRA and other key players in this sector, including ILGA-Europe
and other CSOs, to promote a better understanding of hate crime and to help train law
enforcement officials address them. The agency addresses fundamental rights as a crosscutting issue across all learning products.
Cultural mind-sets and attitudes of course do play a role; hence education (not simply
training) is the key. Six courses have taken place addressing hate crime since 2012. A
specific webinar with ILGA-Europe among the trainers took place in 2014, and a new course
on hate crime based on a new curriculum will be put in place in 2015. Under- reporting and
wrong categorisation of hate crime are still an issue that needs to be addressed.
The upcoming reform of the CEPOL Regulation by the Council and European Parliament
may provide opportunities to enhance the fundamental rights dimension of police training and
open up to European law enforcement trainings. The widening of CEPOL’s target group to
law enforcement officers (as opposed to only senior police officers) may play a crucial role in
this regard. The European Law Enforcement Training Scheme proposed by the European
Commission is an opportunity not to be lost, and it needs to feature clearly in CEPOL’s new
legal basis.
9
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
The workshops exchanges confirmed the invaluable contribution provided by innovative
practices of cooperation involving the police and LGBT organisations. Many of the CSOs
present shared their experiences notably in implementing trainings for the police force and
which revealed a series of systemic issues prevailing at state authorities levels (bureaucracy,
lack of cooperation between police authorities and ministries of justice and budget cuts which
affect the number of training initatives that can be carried out). Participants also argued that
trainings should follow a bottom-up approach and target staff and managerial positions within
the police forces. As concluded by an Amnesty International representative, legislation does
not solve everything. In Greece, for instance, hate crime legislation exists but suffers from
lack of implementation. This is a key issue, affecting the way in which the police and judicial
authorities work.
5. Closing session
The session started with feedback and conclusions from the different workshops, by the
designated rapporteurs and did put forward clear questions and calls for the representatives
of the different EU institutions represented in the final panel.
Report from Workshop 1 : Natacha Kazatchkine (Amnesty International EU)
While the EU can rely on legislation to fight against discrimination and support victims,
minimum rules and sanctions on hate crimes, covering all discrimination grounds, are
lacking. It is felt not acceptable for EU citizens to enjoy different levels of protection from one
country to another. While the last two years have seen renewed Council commitments to
tackle hate crimes, protection gaps cannot continue to be ignored. Moreover, the 2008
Framework Decision has not been effective in ensuring that Member States actually reveal
the hate crime motive during the investigation and prosecution phases. Its provisions need to
be strengthened. It would be commendable that a group of Member States support the
introduction of enhanced EU standards on discriminatory violence that provide protection to
all the grounds covered by Article 19 TFEU.
The European Commission should:
1. Prepare the ground for future legislative action to enhance the existing legal framework
(for example by issuing a Communication, launching consultation through a Green paper
or adopting a recommendation);
2. Tackle specific challenges on investigation and prosecution practices via targeted
measures to strengthen national responses to hate crime on all grounds by Member
States (e.g. by developing specific guidelines to complement the existing guidelines for
the EU Directive on victims of crime and promoting the sharing of good practices
between Member States;
3. Build bridges between EU policy making and the activities of the newly established
FRA/Member States Working Party on hate crime;
4. Promote the adoption of better standards in the field of the protection of victims, while
monitoring the implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive;
5. Use the potential of a future EC LGBTI Strategy to consider new legislation and
guidelines on hate crime.
Report from Workshop 2 : Joël Le Déroff (ENAR)
Some Member States are making progress in the fight against hate crime, while others are
still lagging behind. The role of legislation is deemed essential as a first critical step. As many
Member States haven’t adopted good legislation, EU legislation is necessary to fill protection
gaps. In order to step up the fight against hate crimes, a concerted approach between public
authorities, enforcement agencies and NGOs, which play a fundamental role in reporting,
monitoring and providing support to victims, is needed.
10
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
EU level can play a role ensuring sound implementation of European legislative frameworks,
but also by promoting the exchange of good practices on the issue of hate crimes. This
should be a clear objective of the future LGBTI Strategy to be proposed by the EC.
Report from Workshop 3 : Ulrika Westerlund (RFSL, Sweden)
The role of police forces, public prosecutors and judicial authorities in enforcing legislation
and supporting the victims of hate crimes is paramount. Indeed, if legislation is a first step,
the implementation should not to be taken for granted. Both police and prosecution
authorities are key in stepping up the fight against hate crime. Sensitisation and training in
both areas should therefore be further encouraged and supported.
Capacity-building of police forces in the area of hate crime has been highlighted by models
developed by CEPOL and there are many examples of fruitful and efficient cooperation
between LGBTI organisations and police forces. Exchange of such practices and information
sharing on the issue is recommended. Capacity building of polices forces in the area of hate
crimes has been highlighted by models developed by CEPOL and many examples of fruitful
and efficient cooperation practices between LGBTI organizations and police forces.
Exchange of such practices and information sharing on the issue is recommended.
Considering the high rate of underreporting, awareness raising amongst institutions, but also
the broader public remains of great importance. The European Commission and Member
States should disseminate key tools, such as targeted trainings and encourage peer learning
and sharing in the area of hate crimes. The European Commission should encourage the
development of awareness-raising and educational activities related to hate crime prevention
and the rights of victims, targeting all types of bias violence, through its programming and
funding priorities.
Concluding comments by EU policy makers
In response to the summary of recommendations presented during the seminar workshops,
policy makers representing the European Parliament (EP), the European Commission and
the Council troika were asked to provide their concluding comments.
Roberta Metsola (MEP,EPP Group, Member of the LIBE Committee) referred to the
recent activities that took place in support of the LGBT rights notably the relaunch of the
LGBT intergroup. MEP Metsola also referred to the EP resolution “EU Roadmap against
homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity” 10 which
led to heated discussions and debates in the EP. She mentioned some of the key
recommendations of this resolution, often referred to as Lunacek report, notably the EP’s call
to propose a recast of the Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law to include the grounds of
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Also, the Fundamental Rights Agency should assist Member States in improving their
collection of comparable data about homophobic and transphobic hate crime. Together with
relevant agencies, the Commission should facilitate the exchange of good practices among
Member States pertaining to the training and education of police forces, prosecution
services, judges and victim support services. The extension of the remit of CEPOL will be a
good development in this context.
Paul Nemitz (Director Fundamental rights and citizenship at DG Justice, EC)
contextualised the EU fight against hate crimes as a part of
fundamental rights
mainstreaming, multiculturalism, freedom of movement and the digital age. The opportunities
offered by the potential relaunch of negotiations of the proposed horizontal nondiscrimination directive are part of this continuum. Correct implementation of the Framework
Decision is essential and Member States should not wait for infringement procedures by the
EC but take responsibility and act. All cases of bias hate crime need to be thoroughly
investigated on the ground and this should result in a positive spill over of the existing
10
P7_TA(2014)0062
11
Report of ILGA-Europe’s Seminar – Stepping up the fight against hate crimes – 10 December 2014
legislation. Police and prosecutors need to make use of the existing law. 19 Member States
have developed a legal basis related to hate crime and sexual orientation.
Addressing the question of the extension of European legislation can only be considered if
there is political will in the Council. If the 19 Member States who have legislation to combat
hate crimes would call for legislation, this could create a favourable climate in the Council to
ensure reasonable chances of success in this respect.
Anna Hedh (MEP, S&D Group, Member of the LIBE Committee) recognized the
importance of the FRA’s research-led activities in the field of hate crimes. The fact that the
Council is trying to get out of the regulatory deadlock surrounding the horizontal nondiscrimination proposed directive is a positive sign that could pave the way for more
initiatives in support of LGBT rights. MEP Anna Hedh also pressed the EC to bring clarity in
terms of next steps. The EC LGBTI strategy to which Commissioner Jourova has committed
upon taking office, will be key in this context.
Finally Raoul Ueberrecken (JHA Counsellor at the Permanent representation of
Luxembourg to the EU), while not yet being in the position to highlight the specific priorities
of the upcoming Luxembourg presidency, insisted on the importance of ensuring sound
consolidation of the existing European legislation with the existing instruments available in
this regard notably the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and the Victims Directive along
with its accompanying guidelines. The Charter of Fundamental rights is also the strategic
compass of EU action. Raoul Ueberrecken also recognized the need to continue to mobilize
the expertise of FRA when it comes to research and the identification of best practices. He
finally insisted on the importance of the training of practitioner’s notably police and judiciary
authorities along with best practices exchanges.
Katrin Hugendubel, ILGA-Europe Advocacy Director, closed the session thanking both
participants and speakers for bringing their inspiring thoughts and insights and for examining
means by which ILGA-Europe can support the EU moving forward and strengthening
protections against hate crimes.
7 January 2015
12